NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

HC Deb 18 May 1915 vol 71 cc2250-88

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That this House approves of the Reports of the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants)."

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

I have no desire to speak in this Debate, but as a Member of the Committee it has been represented to me that I should express my entire adhesion to the Report. I can fully confirm the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in saying that all party feeling was excluded from the Committee, and although I am a strong party man, I had almost wished we could regulate a good many things in this House with a similar absence of such feeling. I must thank the House and the country generally for the favour with which our Report has been received. I would only say one thing in reply to my learned Friend opposite (Sir Ryland Adkins). Our idea with regard to the local committees was that they should keep in constant touch with the families of soldiers. I am sure, in reply to an observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman above the gangway (Colonel Yate), that in many parts the admirable advice of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association will be called into co-operation, but we left that to the local committees. The local committees, I hope and think, will consist in the future, as in the past, of men and women who make it their duty to pay visits to the homes of these people, to watch them, and bring their cases before the statutory Committee which, of course, is the Committee that must ultimately decide.

Mr. MACKINDER

The subjects which have been mentioned so far in the Debate have dealt with a general, and if I may say so, a very large question; perhaps the country has as yet hardly realised how large it is, if one can judge by the politics of the United States after the Great Civil War. One, therefore, hesitates to raise a question of detail, but I see no other opportunity of raising that question except in this Debate, and after all the question of detail I want to raise does involve the general question. I want to refer, not to pensions, but to separation allowances and their relation to the supplementary grants which are referred to on page eleven of the first Report. We find it stated there, as the view of the Committee, that they suggest the Prince of Wales' Fund and other funds should be invited to supplement the Government rates of allowances and pensions, when it appears desirable to do so. I think in certain parts of the country, and I know in the west of Scotland, there is a good deal of criticism of the way in which that function of supplementing the general Grant of the State is being fulfilled, and the matter to which I want to refer arises on one particular point in the scale. There is at the present time a 12s. 6d. weekly payment to the wife without children. In the case of London, I believe, there is a supplementary payment—I forget whether it is half-a-crown or three and six. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three and six."] Three and sixpence, then, paid because, I think, it is considered rents in London run higher than in the remainder of the country.

Some little time ago in Glasgow it was felt that this inequality ought not to be, in that in certain of the great urban districts of the country the cost of living is practically as great as it is in London. The practice, therefore, grew up that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association did pay a supplementary grant to cover that additional rent in desirable cases, precisely as is contemplated by this Report. But they were pulled up by the Central Association in London, acting, I believe—it is not too hard a word to use—at the dictation of the committee of the Prince of Wales' Fund, and were told they must not make these grants. That is, there was to be a flat rate, not only in the families concerned, but in the localities involved, although, as has been pointed out, conditions are very different in different parts of the country. After a good deal of remonstrance they were allowed to continue for one month in the payment of these supplementary sums in the case of those women with 12s. 6d. Then they were pulled up sharp, and the result was that there was a very considerable agitation in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. The result of the fund since the Committee pulled up, as rigidly as any Government Department—and it is obvious if you are going to have the supplementary grants there must be a give and take policy, and we should expect it in the voluntary body rather than in the Government Department, though in this case we have it as rigid in the one as in the other—is that there has been a revolt in the West of Scotland against the formation of a separate fund, and a diversion of a very considerable sum from that rich community which, I think most desirably, would have gone to the national centre.

I venture to ask that this matter should be reconsidered, and that not only London but other great urban districts in which the cost of living is abnormally high should be allowed to share in the supplementary grants from the State, inasmuch as these great funds are not administered in a sufficiently flexible way as I have shown in the case I have described. The case is that these women are entitled to keep together the home which the man left, and to which he is to come back. It is impossible that out of the 12s. 6d. they could pay the rent which was paid, in many cases, when the man was home and earning on a much bigger scale than 12s. 6d. Facing that fact, and the fact that the country intended that the home should be kept together, and the man able to come back to that which he left, the local branch of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association did pay the rents or did supplement the separation allowances for the purposes of paying the rent in cases which they thought desirable. I think it would be a cheaper method of arriving at the end we have in view because, in many cases, it is not necessary to supplement the separation allowance. There are other resources in some cases. The rent is not so large, and therefore selection is possible when you administer through the society, but as soon as the society is rigidly controlled here in London, too rigidly it seems to me, we have no control over it. I do appeal to the War Office. I am dealing with the soldiers. I am not aware there is an exactly parallel case with the sailor.

Dr. MACNAMARA

They get the London allowance.

Mr. MACKINDER

Yes, they get another allowance. I do appeal to the Government to consider this in one way or another, either by putting pressure on the administration of the Prince of Wales' Fund to be a little more flexible and reasonable in meeting these cases, or, on the other hand, extending the allowance which is made to London to the other great urban communities. I cannot see any possible reason why they should be excluded from that favour.

Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON

It is scarcely necessary, I think, to make a speech on this subject after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), whose knowledge of it is unique. I should like, however, to express my gratification at the fact that the Government have found time to bring this all-important question before the notice of the House, and I hope that now we shall have some more logical and consistent policy of dealing with the question of dependants' allowances than we have had in the past. Speaking from a certain amount of experience of running one of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association committees in London, I can only say that it is almost impossible to understand the principle upon which these dependants' allowances have been granted. The instructions given to old age pension officers have been far too meagre. I think that has had a great deal to do with the case. Then there was the fact that these men were suddenly called upon to deal with extremely complicated questions, with which none of them had ever been called upon to deal before. That fact makes me think that the proposition that the old age pension committee should be used in future is certainly wrong, and that the local committees which have been proposed are far better. What has taken place in the past is something like this: The old age pension officer went into the room of the dependant and practically made a bargain with him or her as to what was the amount of loss which he or she suffered through the absence of the soldier. In nine cases out of ten this was simply confirmed without any further questions being asked by the old age pension committee. Consequently there were all sorts of absurdities with regard to allowances, the greater part of which probably were based solely on guesswork.

There is some chance of producing order out of all this muddle through the statutory Committee. As I understand it, it will have to have some discretion as to the amount of pension to be given in these cases. You must deal with individuals. You cannot deal with these people in classes. They all differ one from the other in an extraordinary way, and extreme care will have to be taken that justice should be done in the inquiries which have got to be made in each of these cases. On the one hand, you have got to be very careful not to be too inquisitorial; on the other hand, you have got to see that no fraud is allowed to creep in. It is a very common thing in this House to resent any queries being made before assistance is given. At the commencement of the War I remember a very violent attack being made on the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association because it was said to be too inquisitorial. I rather think that nobody would dream for a moment of making such an accusation against the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association now. In fact, it is exceedingly difficult to imagine what would have happened in London if this great society had not been in existence and been able to call upon a very large band of volunteer workers to help them through.

Careful inquiry will have to be made if fraud is to be prevented. Perhaps I may be allowed to give one or two cases that came under my notice quite recently. There was a woman who was drawing a separation allowance which, during her illness, was brought to her house. When called upon by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association visitor she insisted that she was receiving nothing at all, and, technically, she was not, as it was brought by a friend. In this way she was able to draw a second separation allowance, until through the means of this association this fraud was discovered. I have also come across a case of a woman who was drawing three separation allowances, and the fraud was only discovered through the fact that she was not satisfied with that and was trying to get a fourth. There is a man wandering about London now dressed in khaki, and masquerading as a member of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who has already approached three Members of this House and succeeded in drawing a certain amount of money out of two. In the case of the third I am glad to say that he was not successful. His case has now been put into the hands of Scotland Yard, and I hope that he will be removed from the list of beggars. It is quite certain that if due care were not taken in this direction the springs of voluntary charity would undoubtedly dry up. There is another point. It seems to me that the representation of women, both on the statutory Committee and the local committee, is probably not nearly enough. Nine-tenths of the people to be dealt with will be women and children, and if their needs are to be properly attended to it is essential that the representation of women should be considerably increased.

Another and far more important matter is this: The whole question as to how the allowances to the families of our soldiers and sailors are going to be made is being dealt with in a piecemeal way. In the first place, you have got pensions to widows and orphans with which the statutory Committee is not interfering. I regret that a flat rate has been adopted. It is a plan against which we were very strongly cautioned by the Prime Minister at the commencement of the War. The scale which is now in existence, which undoubtedly places some families in a very much better position than ever they were in their lives, certainly would not be sufficient to meet the necessities of those who have been earning a higher rate of wage than the agricultural labourer. To my mind there is only one possible way of meeting the situation fairly—that is, to lay down a minimum scale below which no allowance was to be granted, and the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham would have come in here. The Government would place at the disposal of the statutory Committee a sum of money and trust to the sense of the Committee as to the amount of the allowance to be granted, and if that was not sufficient to cover these expenses, then they would undertake to foot the bill. But to leave all increase of allowance to be provided out of voluntary charity was absolutely unworthy of the country. After all, this is a national obligation, and I am quite certain that the nation would refuse to disown it.

If confusion and overlapping are to be avoided, it seems essential that all the various bodies at present dealing with these questions should be brought together, as it were, under one roof. I have here a letter from my Constituency pointing out very strongly the necessity of this. There is an old age pensions committee which is called upon to decide what is the amount of the allowance to be given. They make up their mind and recommend a certain amount. Whether that amount is given or not is never brought to their notice at all. On this Old Age Pension Committee there sit the representatives of collieries and the charities which they control. These people very naturally say, "These funds are placed at our disposal to make any supplementary grants that may be necessary for these cases; unless we know what allowance the State is giving to these people, how are we to know whether these grants should be supplemented or not?" The answer to that, I am told, is that paymasters have far too much in their hands at the present time. But it does not alter the fact that, if there is to be a consistent way of dealing with these people, full information ought to be at the disposal of the persons who have these funds to administer. If these differently constituted bodies or charities have all got to be under the one roof there is no necessity for them to sink their ideas. All that matters is that they should be in absolutely close touch with one another so that they may carry out all their work with expedition and completion. It seems to me essential that every sailor and soldier, or the widow or dependant of every soldier or sailor, should know that there is one office where all claims will be dealt with, and it is equally necessary that the general public should know the same thing.

I would have every pension, whether it is payable to a widow or a dependant, paid out by the local committee, or according to the order issued by the local committee, the amount being forwarded by the statutory Committee, who would receive the amount in bulk from the Admiralty or the War Office. If the amount was too small it could be supplemented by the statutory Committee. In the same way I would have all disablement allowances passed through the books of the statutory Committee. It is obvious that in many of these cases the allowance will have to be supplemented. There is a great deal of difference between the case of a man who is a bachelor and who on the allowance might be able to get along, but in the case of the married man with dependants it is obvious that he would not be able to get along.

Dr. MACNAMARA

That would be allowed for.

Sir C. NICHOLSON

It would be allowed for, but only half a crown, I believe. I do not think it is a case that ought to be left to casual charity. Therefore I would bring into as close touch as possible this statutory Committee with all the authorities dealing with these matters. Only in this way, I think, can the matter be dealt with. When wounded and disabled men are seen wandering about unprovided for, I think the nation would only be too willing to supply the funds from which genuine claims could be expeditiously and satisfactorily dealt with. Apart from those principles I, in common with everybody else, welcome the Report of the Committee. It is a step undoubtedly in the right direction, and I am quite sure that with a central body we should have these cases treated, both from the soldiers' and sailors' point of view, and the point of view of the general public.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE

I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Members of this Committee for the great care that they have taken in sifting the evidence brought before them, and in coming to conclusions with which I think every Member of this House will agree. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] I am speaking of the conclusions. With regard to the principle of the Report, whatever hon Members below the Gangway opposite may say, there can be no objection. As to a flat rate, the hon. Member who spoke last seemed to think it was wrong. I am not in agreement with him on that point, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) that a proper flat rate would mean, of course, the expenditure of a very large sum of money, and I therefore accept his suggestion that there should be a considerable amount of money set aside, out of public funds, which would be available for supplementing the present rate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham mentioned a sum of five millions. Five million pounds is not, in my opinion, at all too much, and I certainly do not think that we shall be able to raise that sum after the War from voluntary funds. I do not quite understand what voluntary funds are expected to supply the money. I see in the first Report that it is suggested that the Prince of Wales' Fund and other local funds should be invited to supplement the Government rates. In the second Report, we are told that in proper cases this body will supplement allowances out of voluntary funds of a national character. What funds are of national character it is difficult to state. Of course the Prince of Wales' Fund is a fund of a national character, but I do not know why the Prince of Wales' Fund should subscribe five millions. I imagined that the Prince of Wales' Fund was collected for the specific purposes of assisting people during the War, and not to assist them after the War. That, of course, was my impression; I may be wrong. If we are to rely upon voluntary funds to supplement the allowances and pensions, those voluntary funds will have to be very large indeed.

I am sorry that we have not got the officers' report to-night, because I think that would have enabled us to go more deeply into the whole question. If the Committee are to decide certain questions in a judicial capacity, I think we should have upon it a certain number of men, certainly the Chairman or vice-Chairman, with some legal knowledge. In the matter of the representation of women on the Committee, certainly I think that at present it is far too small; there should be at least four women on that body. I should also like to know what Department of the State will be able to answer in this House on behalf of the Committee. That is an essential matter, because we have had very great difficulty, very often, in getting answers to questions with regard to the Prince of Wales' Fund. I should be glad, therefore, before we adjourn, to have the views of the Government upon that question. Then, again, with regard to voluntary funds, have the Government considered the different kinds of matters which will come before the Committee, requiring money to be set apart from those voluntary funds. Take, for example, the case of blind men of whom I do not see any mention in this Report. Some time ago I asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a question with regard to the position of blind men, and I was told that they would be awarded the highest pension that could be given.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Total disablement!

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

Under the present scale, that is something like 2s. 6d. a day, and I doubt whether that covers children. No doubt when the new scale comes into operation the amount will be very much higher. At the same time, it should be remembered that blind men require attendants. There is no provision made in the report for attendants on blind men. I suppose that will come out of the voluntary fund. There is a number of cases of a similar character for which we shall have to call upon the voluntary fund for the money. In reference to the question of mothers, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new body will be in a position to consider the question of allowances paid to the mothers of the men. At the present moment the allowance to the mother practically depends upon what the pensions committee officer chooses to say it ought to be. That, I think, is a very great mistake. The allowance to the mother, especially if she is a widow, or if her husband is unable to work, should not in any way fall below the allowance given to a wife without children. That ought to be the lowest. I should like to bring before the House another omission in the report. There is no reference to the wives of warrant officers. I believe I am correct in stating that wives of warrant officers, serving in the Royal Navy, are not eligible at present for separation allowances, whereas the wives of warrant officers in the Royal Marines are eligible. That difference is causing very much dissatisfaction. The wives of warrant officers are generally women of a class who cannot afford to do without separation allowances, and these women have suffered very great hardships in many cases. A man writes to me:— We know of two cases where wives of members of our rank have received replies to personal application for separation allowances from the Admiralty informing them that they would not be granted. In one case application was made to the honorary secretary of an Officers' Family Fund for assistance, and she was informed that the rank of her husband debarred her from assistance, and the honorary secretary much regretted it. These men are in one case considered as officers, and in the other case they are not so considered, but in no case do they get separation allowances, or any help from public funds. Their pay is comparatively small. A boatswain who has attained the rank of warrant officer gets, I think, 6s. per day. He has to pay from 30s. to £2 for messing and washing, and makes an allowance of £6 per month to his wife, who has to support herself and her children out of 30s. per week. That obviously is a very great hardship. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has not something which he can tell us to-night which will be very acceptable to the wives of those warrant officers. I have brought the matter before him on several occasions, going back as far as October of last year; and on each occasion he told me that the matter was under consideration. We have now the Report of the Committee, and I see nothing about this matter in it. I should like to ask him whether the subject has now been considered, and what is the result.

Mr. ANDERSON

I am quite sure it will be recognised in all parts of the House that these reports mark a very real advance in this matter. In the past this country, like other countries, has not always been very generous towards those who have gone through wars, or towards those dependant upon those people. It is to be hoped that these reports mark the development of a new conscience in that regard. I desire to refer to one or two points of detail, which I hope will be taken into account when the Bill comes to be drafted, and that we shall have an opportunity of discussing them on another occasion. First of all let me mention the position of dependants of soldiers and sailors other than the wives of soldiers and sailors. The hon. Gentleman who spoke I last referred to this matter. In my opinion a great deal of hardship would be avoided, and also a great deal of dissatisfaction, if, say in the case of mothers of soldiers there was an attempt to simplify the method by which it is decided how much she ought to have. The present method works out badly. And I think it lergely puts a premium on dishonesty. I say that without any hesitation, because I know that an attempt is made to ascertain the precise degree of dependence of a mother upon her boy who has joined the Colours. That means very often something in the nature of inquisitorial methods, and it means in many cases that the woman who can tell the best story is the woman who can draw the largest amount of allowance. There is no doubt on that point at all. Too much also, in my opinion, is loft to the discretion of the pension officer. The pension officer, if he is a good-hearted man, as he very often is, will stretch a point, and the woman gets more; while if he takes a more strictly official view of his duties he does not stretch a point, and the woman gets less. I do not think that is a very satisfactory method by which to decide this matter. Therefore I think as the method does lead to deception, and very often delays in payment, it would be far better if a more simplified method could be adopted, by which you could decide whether a mother was wholly or partially dependent upon the boy and settle the matter very largely from that point of view.

I wish also to call attention to the case of the partially disabled soldier. It is proposed that the partially disabled soldier shall secure a sufficient pension to bring his earnings, with what he may earn in some labour capacity, up to 25s. per week. I am not quarrelling with that. I think the provision for giving the disabled soldiers 25s. per week is a tremendous advance on anything that has gone before, but I think there should be certain safeguards, and that as far as possible we ought to avoid throwing the partially disabled soldier to take his chance in the rough and tumble of the ordinary labour market. I think he ought to be protected from ordinary labour and that special work ought to be provided for him, and that he should receive extra care and attention from the State. I put that forward both from the standpoint of the partially disabled soldier and also of the ordinary workers, on the ground that the conditions of employment ought not to be beaten down by the competition of partially disabled men. I come to another point, and I am very glad the Financial Secretary is present, because I have had correspondence with him on this matter, and that is as to the wife of the sailor, in regard to which I am not satisfied. Under this arrangement it is stated that the wife of the sailor without children is to receive 6s. per week, and this 6s. is contingent upon an allotment from the sailor himself. I do not object to that, but how does it work out? Unless the sailor makes an allotment to his wife, she is not eligible to receive separation allowance. Following that up, the Admiralty has no power to compel an allotment, and therefore any man who cares to do so is allowed to deprive his wife both of a separation allowance and of an allotment, so far as the Admiralty is concerned.

I will give a concrete instance of how this works out. I know a case of a man belonging to Newcastle, who is a first-class stoker in the Navy, earning good wages at this moment, and his wife is the recipient of charity through the Lord Mayor's Fund in Newcastle. As far back as May, 1913, the man in question was ordered by the magistrate to pay his wife 7s. 6d. per week. He disappeared; he has not paid a penny, and a warrant for his apprehension is in the hands of the Newcastle police. He went, I believe, as a Naval Reserve man. He has been approached on behalf of his wife, but he simply refused to do anything, and the Admiralty say that as he refuses to do anything they are not in a position to do anything either. They are not in a position to make a man's wife a separation allowance unless in the first instance they can get an allotment from the man himself. That is not a good position. Where a man shirks his family obligations, as very few men would do, the Admiralty ought to be in a position to say, "You are going to be compelled to carry out your family obligations." It is entirely wrong that a man earning good wages should have his wife on local charitable funds. I believe that the method of the Admiralty is different from that of the War Office. The War Office, I believe, has compulsory allotment, and I fail to understand why in this matter one policy should be pursued by the Admiralty and another by the War Office. It is certainly a point which ought to receive attention. I come now to the special body which is to settle these particular claims. It is to be a statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Corporation. The criticism has already been made that on this Committee women are not sufficiently represented. I entirely endorse that criticism. There are two women on a committee of twenty-five members. Considering that these claims and conditions affect so many working women, it is very important indeed that the number of women on the Committee should be larger. It is also inadequate to propose that there should be two representatives of labour on a committee of twenty-five. On a committee dealing with so many claims of working people labour ought to be much more adequately represented.

9.0 P.M.

It is suggested that on the proposed Committee there should be two members from the governing body of the National Relief Fund. What is to be the relation of the National Relief Fund to this question of military and naval pensions? We know that from the National Relief Fund many advances have already been made, especially in the earlier stages of the War. It was very right and proper that advances should be made if money was necessary in order to tide the nation over a difficulty of that kind, or to get matters into order. But I suggest that the National Relief Fund, whatever its purpose, was not organised from the point of view of view of relieving the Government of its own obligations and responsibilities towards soldiers and sailors. Therefore, in so far as grants and advances that are a legitimate charge on the Treasury have been made, in my opinion the money ought to be repaid to the National Relief Fund; and for the future any money from that fund should be in the nature of supplementary grants to give the soldier or sailor something extra, and not from the standpoint of relieving the nation of its own responsibilities. We have to remember in this connection that there will almost certainly be at the end of the War very severe civil distress, and probably a good deal of unemployment. This fund was largely got together from the standpoint of relieving distress, and it would be wrong merely to allow the Government to shirk any obligations which it has in this matter, and to take the whole of the money from the National Relief Fund, as later on that money will be very urgently needed. I think it right to utter that word of warning. I see in the Report of a Committee, set up by the President of the Local Government Board, in regard to the employment of soldiers and sailors disabled in the War, a suggestion that there should be one great organisation to take in hand all these questions: first, the dealing with disabled soldiers; then the tackling of the whole question of demobilisation after the War; and, thirdly, the question of pensions and separation allowances. Here is an extract from the Report:— It seems to us almost impossible to contemplate the establishment of two unconnected organisations, one dealing with disabled and the other with able-bodied soldiers and sailors. We observe, moreover, that the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants) has recommended the appointment of a statutory Committee to deal with the pensions, separation allowances, and supplementary grants payable to soldiers and sailors and their dependants. We therefore venture to suggest that some advantage might result from the constitution of one body charged with all the functions to which we have alluded, and that the one great elaborate local organisation which we have recommended for the purpose in the Report might be justified. I have no doubt that that is intended to avoid over-lapping, and so far as over-lapping can be avoided it is a good thing that it should be. On the other hand, there is a danger of jumping to the other extreme. It will be impossible to take in hand the questions of the disabled soldier, of the demobilisation of the soldiers, involving two or three million men, as well as the question of pensions. If too much is put on one committee it will break down, and the work will be inadequately done. There is the civil problem of getting the ordinary man back to work at the end of the War; there is the military problem, and there is the pensions problem. I do not believe that any one committee, however able or well-constituted, could tackle efficiently all these various questions. I have made these points in the hope that they may be looked into when the matter comes up in the form of a Bill. Despite all criticism which we may hope to offer on points of detail, we welcome these Reports as a real advance upon anything that has gone before.

Colonel YATE

I should like to join in what has been said by previous speakers on behalf of disabled soldiers and sailors. If there was one thing more apparent than another throughout the country at the beginning of the War it was the stern resolve of the people that never again in the country should be seen the disabled soldier or sailor begging at the street corner as was witnessed in the old days after the Crimean and other wars. The country looks for sufficient and adequate provision to be made for the men who comeback from the front. I understand that the whole of the provisions of the first Report have been put into force, except the one with regard to disabled soldiers and sailors. They are the only people who are not as yet getting the full allowances recommended in that Report. I hope that the Secretary to the Admiralty will be able to tell us that those allowances will be given in full. I hope also that the allowances to disabled soldiers and sailors will be granted with a generous interpretation of the rules, and that these men will not be left to depend in any way upon voluntary charity. I do not quite understand the reference in the Report to voluntary funds. My belief is that as £5,000,000 have been subscribed to the Prince of Wales' Fund, further voluntary funds will be uncertain. The provision made by the Government ought to be adequate to meet the needs of these men without any reliance whatsoever upon voluntary funds. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us assurances on that point.

With regard to the committees of which he spoke, I should like to join with the other Members who brought to notice the shortness of the representation of women. I think that in all these questions women members of the committees, either statutory or local, are of the greatest use. Where provision has been made for two women representatives, I think provision should be made for four. I would also specially press the proper representation of the Services, both for the Army and Navy, of men who have been accustomed to deal with soldiers and sailors. Such representation is certainly necessary on the statutory and local Committees, and I trust that provision will be made for this. The only other subject I should like to refer to deals with Section 23 of the first Report, and refers to the employment of old soldiers and sailors. The Section recommends that where it may be possible to employ old soldiers and sailors in the Government service, this should be done, and that in such circumstances their remuneration should be fixed without regard to any pension of which they may be in receipt. I entirely agree with that, and I hope that the recommendation will be thoroughly carried out.

The other day, when this question came up for consideration in the House, I asked the Prime Minister if he would give an assurance on behalf of the Government that at least 75 per cent. of the ordinary subordinate appointments in Government offices would be reserved for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors at the termina- tion of the War. I also asked him to be good enough to press the same consideration on all the municipal and public bodies throughout the country. I had the opportunity a day or two afterwards of putting a question to him in relation to this matter, and the answer that he gave was that they proposed to put this matter before the municipal and public bodies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will be able to tell us that this promise of the Prime Minister is being thoroughly carried out. On this question of the employment of old soldiers we must have a regular lead from the Government, a strong and decided lead. The matter cannot be left to chance. Disabled soldiers and sailors, I hope, will be looked up by these two Committees which are being set up, so that in the case of the man with one leg or with one eye it will be seen what employment they are fitted for.

On this matter of employment of ex-soldiers, I hope we shall have a strong lead from the Government, and that the Prime Minister will speak in the name of the whole of the Government, not in the name of one Department; for this matter cannot be attended to by one or the other Departments, but by the Government as a whole. I trust we shall have the distinct order that at least three-quarters of the suitable appointments in Government offices shall be reserved for ex-soldiers, and that the same course will be followed by the municipal and public bodies throughout the whole country. Unless something of the sort is done, we shall have terrible distress in the case of our soldiers at the end of this War. I hope sincerely that the recommendations of this Committee will be carried out, that the authorities will see that full consideration is given to the recommendations of the Committee, and that the remuneration for ex-soldier's work will be fixed without regard to any pension of which he may be in receipt.

Mr. HOGGE

I should like, first of all, to thank whoever represents the Government at the moment for the response which was made to my request that we should have a day to discuss this Pensions Committee's Report. Possibly a good deal of the criticism that I may desire to direct against the two Reports which have been submitted to the House, has to a large extent been covered by the preceding speeches which I have not heard. Therefore, I shall be glad to be pulled up if I indulge in repetition. There are one or two preliminary points that I want to put to the Government. I am not yet satisfied that the Government have really grasped some of the real human difficulties which have arisen in respect to separation allowances. May I take one example of what I consider those difficulties to be? Take the case of a man who has joined what we now know as the New Army. His father and mother are in quite good circumstances, and on account of that the son who joins has no need to make application for separation allowance to be paid either to his father or mother. The father and mother give not only the boy to the service of their country, but they relieve the country from any support that that son had been in the habit of contributing towards the home. In the course of the War, which has now extended from eight to ten months, the father dies from an illness at home, and the son who is in the Army becomes the sole support of his mother, and probably his younger brothers and sisters. It is impossible, at the moment, for that young soldier to secure a separation allowance for his mother. I do want the Government to consider that point again. After all, there are not a very large number of cases. They cannot run into thousands. It is not casualties in the field; it is casualties from sickness at home. I do submit that surely in that case of the mother who has lost her husband, and who previously had given her son to the service of his country, that she should be entitled to draw separation allowance. The only thing that prevents him doing that at present is that the Government will not allow that soldier to make an allotment. Therefore the mother cannot draw any separation allowance. I think that a most extraordinarily hard case.

Dr. MACNAMARA

He can send a remittance if he wishes.

Mr. HOGGE

Excuse me, my right hon. Friend, after all, is only at the Admiralty; he is not at the War Office. There is nobody, in fact, at the moment who can answer for the War Office, but if my right hon. Friend will convey to his colleagues at the War Office what I have been saying, he will find that my position is right. I know I am right for this reason: I have been refused so often from the Front Bench. If a soldier has not originally made an allotment when he joins, and his father dies while he is with the Army in Flanders, he is not then allowed to make that allotment so as to secure separation allowance for his mother who is then a widow. That, I think, is extraordinarily hard. There is a double sacrifice. I do wish the Government would look into this point a little more sympathetically than they have done up to the present moment. There is another point in regard to the details of this Report that I do not quite like. The amount of the pension and the amount of the allowance for the wives or the widows of our soldiers and sailors is definitely settled in the Report, and the figures are set out for each of them, but the question of how much is to be allotted in the case of a dependant who is a mother or a sister is left to a body which is to be set up and which we are criticising to-night. That raises, again, the point which I have been making with regard to this particular case. Why was it not possible for this Select Committee of the House of Commons to determine that amount? After all, this was supposed to be a Committee of the House of Commons.

Dr. MACNAMARA

It was.

Mr. HOGGE

I prefer to suggest it was supposed to be a Committee of the House of Commons, and the reason I say that is that it was composed of six of the busiest men in the House of Commons, absolutely the men who had the least time of all men in the House of Commons to attend to it, and therefore these points might obviously get overlooked. I do not make any complaint about that, except that it might have been possible for the Government to put men on that Committee who were equally interested and might have more leisure to go into details. I do not, however, complain about that. My point is surely it was as easy for that Committee to suggest what ought to be the standard in the case of a mother or sister as it was to suggest in black and white, as they did, the standard for a wife.

There is another class of allowance which I want to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend, and that is the allowances of apprentices. I do hope that he, or some of his colleagues, will say something about this question. There, again, is an extraordinarily hard case. You get lads who were on the way to complete their own trade or profession, but give up, for the purposes of the country and for the need of the country, an apprenticeship which means that, however long the War may be, by that length their apprenticeship will be drawn out, and by that length their earning capacity, so far as their family is concerned, will be diminished for some considerable time. I have nothing to complain about with regard to the pension officer, who, after all, is very much like any other Government official. He has his routine-minded way of looking at things, and there is very little of the milk of human kindness in any of your pension officers, or any Government official, so far as my experience has gone. A lad who has given all this up is only considered to have made a monetary sacrifice, and nothing else is considered; and because that lad, in the course of his apprenticeship, happens to be earning, say, 3s. 6d. or 5s. a week—it depends on the year of his apprenticeship—the amount which he contributes to the household is determined by that. Obviously, if the lad had been at his business, his contribution to the household would be an increasing quantity, and at the close of his apprenticeship would be a very substantial amount; but, because he has made the extra sacrifice of giving that up and serving his country, down come the Government Pension Committee and make it harder for him and his people. I do think that is the kind of thing that ought to be avoided. There are a great many other cases of this kind which one could raise, but which I refrain from doing at the moment because there are other points I want to raise.

I never have agreed, and, despite all that has been said so far in the discussion that I have heard, I do not agree with the fixing of a flat-money rate, either for the payment of separation allowances or for pensions, and I want to put again with what arguments I can adduce, and with what force is possible, this point, and I should like a reply to it—at least I should like to know the view of the Government with regard to it. As my right hon. Friend knows, there are three classes of pensioners who will be affected by the proposals of this Committee. There are the widows and dependants of our soldiers in the great Metropolis of London, which is treated particularly on account of the fact that rent is so much higher in London than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That separates the rest of the country into the provinces and the country districts.

I want to put this point, and I think there is some considerable force in it. You could have adopted another flat rate than a purely money flat rate, and the flat rate I suggest you could have adopted would be, what I would prefer to call, a subsistence value flat rate. It has been done, as a matter of fact, by writers interested in this question all over the country. It has been calculated what is required to keep a family in physical efficiency under a roof, and those figures can be stated with a certain amount of agreement among all people who are interested in the question. The figures, roughly, are these—I do not think they are sufficient; I would not like to be put through the experiment myself of having to get along with them, but they are the accepted minimum figures, and they have not been challenged by any authority worth mentioning. The amount of food required is valued at 5s. Rent in the country is usually put at 2s. per week; in the provinces at 4s. a week; and in London at 5s. 6d. per week. For fuel and lighting 1s. 6d. is allowed; for clothes, 1s.; and for sundries, 1s. That is altogether, 10s. 6d. in the country, 12s. 6d. in the provinces, and 14s. in London. I will not elaborate this point, because, as I say, everybody who has written upon this with authority, the Local Government Board officials and our own Blue Books upon the subject from time to time, agree that those are figures which may generally be accepted.

Look what happened. Take, for example, as you may take, the case of a widow left with three children, or a wife with three children and her husband at the front, if she happens to be living in London she gets 23s.; if she happens to be living anywhere in the provinces—Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and so on—she gets 21s. 6d., and if she is in the country she gets 19s. 6d. I mean that is what it costs her in the physical efficiency figures I have given. It would cost a family of a wife and three children 23s., 21s. 6d., or 19s. 6d., according to the district, to live on the basis of physical efficiency. According to the Government's proposals it is proposed to give the family in London on that basis 22s. 6d., in the provinces 23s., and in the country districts 23s. People say that you cannot make fish of one and fowl of the other, but I respectfully submit that in the country, where you have a woman with three children just now separated from her husband because of the War she is in receipt of 23s., which is infinitely more than the woman was receiving when her husband was at work; therefore you get an allowance in the country districts of 3s. 6d. more than what is required for physical efficiency, whereas in the provinces, in such a Constituency as my own, we only get 1s. 6d., which, in a sentence, means that every person in receipt of a separation allowance anywhere in the provinces is 2s. worse off than anybody in London or in the country. That is a point which really requires consideration from the Government. Where are the bulk of these separation allowances paid? Not in London or in the country. It is perfectly obvious that the bulk of them are paid in the big provincial towns.

Dr. MACNAMARA

London has its due proportion.

Mr. HOGGE

But the mass of the money is paid in the provinces. The reason I make that point is that with the increased rise in food prices it is infinitely harder for the women in the provinces to meet the circumstances of a rise than it is for the woman in the country. I draw this conclusion, and it seems not only ironical, but rather sad, that, as a matter of fact, it is going to pay in hard cash the wife of any agricultural labourer in Great Britain to have her husband killed in this War.

Dr. MACNAMARA

indicated dissent.

Mr. HOGGE

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. My contention is that you are going to give this woman, as a result of her husband being killed in this way, several shillings more, up to 4s., than the woman was enjoying when her husband was alive, and that is being done at the expense of the great mass of the population in the provinces. Points of that sort make me regret that when this Committee of the House of Commons was sitting so few of us had an opportunity of putting our views before it. I notice from the Blue Book, consisting of nearly 300 pages, that the people who have given evidence included among others the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), and he was the only Member of this House.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I gave evidence.

Mr. HOGGE

Yes, but you are a Member of the Government. There are a great many men in the country with great experience in the administration of old age pensions and the poor law who have never been given an opportunity of putting their views before the Committee. I would suggest that my right hon. Friend should give his colleagues a hint that if we had got proper opportunities at those times we should not require to take these opportunities of expressing our views. I am very concerned about the casualties in the present War and the class of society among which those casualties are occurring. It has been said from the Treasury Bench to-day, by the Home Secretary, that the Government have borne in mind the fact that our soldiers in the New Army are drawn from all classes of society, and I think he said that they had decided upon a flat rate because they were all doing the same kind of work. You have to bear in mind that the sacrifice in many cases is very different. I hope I am not a snob, and I am not going to say anything snobbish, but I hope the House will excuse me when I say that many a man has gone from a home where a certain standard of conduct has been kept up, who has sacrificed the salary that made that possible, and who has been killed. Whatever position his people have been in, the widow and the children of that man possibly find themselves in a house with a standard of comfort to maintain without the wherewithal to maintain it. That seems a very serious problem, and I want to suggest to the Government that in addition to what they have already done, they might reasonably consider the question whether or not for the lifetime of those widows at any rate—I do not say the dependants—they could not make some sort of arrangement for buying the house in which those people reside and securing it to them for the rest of their life. I think my right hon. Friend has been through the same kind of experience as I have, and he will recognise that the great sheet anchor of respectability is a shelter over the wife and family, and if that is secured their native ingenuity and devices will often enable them to weather the storm under the new conditions if they know that there is not the landlord always at the back looming as a threatening influence behind them, possibly with the idea of putting them out of house and home. That is one consideration and I hope it will receive attention.

Let me turn for a moment to the new body which is going to be set up. I have read very carefully the evidence which was given before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham. I may say that I was rather astonished to find the very Radical views he expressed in his evidence, and I was also astonished at the stress he laid upon the Committee being much more representative than any other committee which existed at the moment, and at the stress he laid upon the fact that it should in some way be brought under the review of Members of this House. I hope the House will agree with me when I say that I recognise that in the immediate past there has been far too much devolving of responsibility from this House upon outside bodies, over which we have no control. I say frankly that I hate that system, and I presume other people besides the Germans may hate. I hate such bodies as the Roads Board and the Development Commissioners which have public money to spend outside the House of Commons, and which we cannot criticise here. I do not mind whether our criticism is foolish or wise, but we have such a right and we ought to maintain it, and it will be a thousand pities if the new body administering pensions should be an authority outside the House of Commons, and that we should allow for a moment our right to criticise and review the doings of that body, at least once a year, to be taken away from us. I do not like the body that it is proposed to set up. It is like all such bodies. You sit round a table and you say, "let us have two of this and two of that," just like reading a recipe for some fancy cake. You do not want to go upon the idea that unless you have somebody from here and there that you will offend this or that interest. You want to make the body sufficiently representative and secure that it shall retain the confidence of the community. What is the use of setting up a new body with a new chairman and vice-chairman with salaries—

Dr. MACNAMARA

Only a salary for the chairman.

Mr. HOGGE

We are always setting up these bodies. You are only proposing a salary for the chairman, but the House of Commons knows that very soon we shall have a vice-chairman, also with a salary. Well, let us say a chairman. What is the use of appointing a new committee with a chairman with a salary? We are told by the Front Bench every day of our lives that we ought to save and not to spend money. You have got a body in existence which can do this work better than any body I know, and which is efficiently officered. I refer to the insurance committee. I want to put that suggestion with all seriousness to my Friends on the Front Bench. There are several advantages in handing over the administration of this money to the insurance committees. First of all, the bulk of the people to whom it will be paid are the wives and children of men who are already insured, and there is no body in the United Kingdom to-day which has more information, and more accurate information, about the conditions of the people than the insurance committees.

There is another point which will appeal at any rate to the Patronage Secretary. It will meet the national point. You have separate Insurance Commissioners for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. These are efficient men. Talking of our own Commissioners in Scotland, I do not suppose that there are any more efficient officers in the service of the Government. What is to hinder them administering these pensions for Scotland without setting up this new central body? I am talking without any consultation with my colleagues, but there are some of them here and they will say whether they disagree, and so far as we in Scotland are concerned we are against the centralisation of anything which can be well done in Scotland. We put up a fight long ago for a separate Insurance Commission in Scotland, and we got it. I suggest, instead of creating a new chairman with a salary, that you have already got the chairman here with a good salary and with an efficient staff. These committees are spread over the length and breadth of all the important component parts of the country, and they could do this work effectively.

I had a Motion down on the Paper—I do not know whether it has gone—to call attention to this Report, and to move, instead of the Committee which it is proposed to set up, that the matter should be administered by a Committee of the House. I meant that we should do as we do in our great municipalities, and have these pensions administered by a Committee formed of Members of this House, who would report from time to time, so that we should hear about their doings; but I think that my other scheme is better. You have got the machinery to your hand in the insurance committees, and you certainly have got efficient officers. I wish, instead of accepting this Report of these very distinguished Members of the House of Commons, you would attempt to find the real mind of the House of Commons and put that into operation. I think I can almost forgive my right hon. Friend anything if he will undertake to put right the case of the man who is now compelled to support his mother because his father has died since he joined, and if he can add the insurance committee instead of this Committee I shall be delighted.

Mr. G. THORNE

I rise to emphasise one practical appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins). The Home Secretary has made it perfectly clear that all we do tonight is to confirm the principle of the Report, and that all details may be left for full consideration until we have the Bill which the Government will present. My hon. Friend urged, and I would also urge, that the Government should produce that Bill at the earliest possible moment. We want to see the details which carry out the principle comprised in this proposal. We want it early, especially for this reason: Those of us who are associated with local authorities desire to submit the proposals to them for detailed consideration. The successful working of this scheme will manifestly ultimately devolve upon the constitution both of the central and of the local committees, and in reference to the local committees it is of the utmost importance, if they are to work thoroughly and practically, that we should have the assistance of our local authorities in any recommendations which we make. The Home Secretary said that there would not only be full opportunity of considering details, but that he would welcome recommendations in reference to them. We desire to make those recommendations practical, and I therefore strongly urge that the Bill be produced at the earliest possible moment, so that we may have the fullest opportunity of considering the proposals between the First and Second Readings.

Mr. BIGLAND

I wish to mention one point in regard to the recommendation of the Committee that wherever it may be possible to employ old sailors or soldiers or their widows in Government service it should be done, and that their remuneration should be fixed without regard to any pension they may receive. That point will have to be very carefully covered in the drafting of the Bill now under consideration. Those soldiers and sailors who have already come back from the War and have begun to receive their pensions, find themselves in a difficulty. I have in mind particularly the case of a man who has lost one arm and for whom we got work at 7s. 6d. per week. He seemed grateful, but two days afterwards he came back and said that he was sorry he could not take the appointment. He gave no reason. We got him another appointment for a similar sum, and he then replied that he could not take it because he would lose 2s. 6d. per week, as under the Insurance Act he was entitled to 10s. per week.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Sick pay.

Mr. BIGLAND

He is entitled under the Insurance Act to 10s. per week for twenty-six weeks. It will be quite easy for the Government to put in a Clause providing that the man shall keep his 10s. per week for twenty-six weeks, and what money he can make, but that if he makes more than 5s. per week, then the National Insurance Fund shall to some extent be relieved. Supposing a man got employment bringing him in 12s. 6d. per week, then in the ordinary way for the first twenty-six weeks he would only make 2s. 6d. per week. If the Government were careful to draft a reasonable scheme by which the Approved Society would be relieved to a certain extent, and by which the man by his extra work would get a little more luxury in his life, I think the difficulty would be met. What I do not understand is the Clause that has already been drafted—Clause 15. It seems to cover in some way that point, but it does not make it clear to my mind. I understand the Insurance Fund would be relieved to the extent of 5s. a week, but it does not say how much the men would have to earn in order to relieve the Insurance Fund to that extent. I desire to call attention to this point, because it is quite certain to crop up in every direction.

Another point I wish to discuss is in regard to the local committees. It seems to me that the central committee will, to a large extent, depend upon the judgment and report of the local committee. I quite agree that the local committee should not be the final arbiters on these matters, but the way it will work out will be that the local committee will practically assess the amount. There are men in every large town and in every county who will be only too anxious and willing to assist the Government, by giving the best of their time and service to this matter. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that there are a certain number of people who, in making their claims, do not disclose all the facts, it is the local committee that will be able to ascertain the facts, and they will guide the judgment of the central committee. Personally I wish to thank the members of the Committee who have drafted this Report, because it is excellent in every way. It only needs some slight amendment and improvement to make it an excellent working scheme.

Mr. DICKINSON

There have been two points raised on these Benches, as to which I would like to say a word or two. The first is the position of the people whose circumstances have changed since they enlisted. The reason why no allowance is given at the present moment in cases where a soldier's father dies and a soldier becomes the support of his mother, is that the War Office has laid down a regulation that, in assessing dependants, you must take into consideration alone the circumstances that held good at the time of enlistment. This was the suggestion of the War Office and of the Admiralty, and it was approved of by the Select Committee. There is no doubt it does on occasion work harshly, and I think that both in that case, and also in the case where an apprentice enlists at a moment when he can be no support, and when, in fact, he gives up all chance of becoming a support of his parents, the War Office and the Admiralty would do well to reconsider their decision. This Report is in itself a very valuable document, but it does not exhaust by any means the subject of pensions. In the first place, as my right hon. Friend knows, the Report dealt ostensibly with only Class 5 of the men. It raised the pension of the wife without a child from 7s. 6d. to 10s. and increased the amount for children. But the Report says nothing about the other classes. I presume that those other classes will receive the same pension as the lower ranks. I want a definite statement as to that. The Report leaves it to be assumed that the other ranks are to receive the same pensions as before. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will state definitely what is the position in regard to that. Another question which is not dealt with in the Report is the position of persons in London who are pensioners. There is an extra allowance of 3s. 6d. in regard to persons in London in receipt of the separation allowance, but there is no proposal to make a like addition to the pensions of Londoners, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say, when he replies, whether or not it is intended that the same addition shall be made to the sum paid to pensioners in London as is given to those in receipt of separation allowances?

Dr. MACNAMARA

No.

Mr. DICKINSON

I assume there is no London allowance in the case of pensions, but a good many people imagine that that arrangement is to hold good for pensioners as well as for separation allowances. If it does not, of course the result will be that when a woman living in London loses her husband the payment she will receive as a pensioner will be considerably less than her separation allowance. Now I come to the general question. I hope no time will be lost in bringing in the Bill to carry out these proposals. We have suffered a very great deal by delay up to the present, and many poor people are suffering hardships. It has been understood that a woman who loses her husband is to go on receiving her separation allowance for twenty-six weeks, by which time her pension should be settled. As a matter of fact the War has now lasted forty weeks, and a great many women have come into the category of pensioners, and it seems to me very important that the proposals with regard to pensions should be settled as quickly as possible in justice to these people. At the present moment they lose some of their income when they become pensioners—they receive less than they received in the form of separation allowance.

If we are going to have a system under which, as the Report recommends, there will not be merely a flat scale, but there will be additional allowances made in cases of hardship, it will be very hard upon those persons who have already lost their husbands and sons in the War that they should not have the advantage, as soon as possible, of the proposals that are going to be made. With regard to dependants the case is still more pressing. The Government have extended the time during which a dependant receives a separation allowance from twenty-six weeks to three months, but even that three months will very soon expire, and, in the meantime the new body, as the Report suggests, is to frame a scheme for the payment of allowances to dependants. This is a far more difficult question than that of payment of pensions to widows, because the amount depends upon the consideration of each individual case. That consideration has to be given under some scheme which is to be provided by the new authority, and, so far as I can see, the new authority will not be set up and in working order for weeks or months at the present rate of progress. It is of great importance that this problem of how to deal with dependants, as pensioners, should be settled very soon. The Report lays down no particular rule, but suggests that the scheme should be such as will secure to the dependants, so far as may be possible, the benefits they have received from the deceased soldier or sailor during his life. That problem is causing the utmost difficulty at the present moment. I can very well foresee that the question of payments of pensions to dependants is one which will be open to a great deal of discussion before it can be settled satisfactorily.

With regard to the general question of the authority, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) in his advocacy—I am glad he succeeded in making it good—of some authority who shall be able to add to the amount of the pension over and above the flat rate. I do not agree with him as to the actual constitution of the authority. This matter is one that can only be dealt with by the Government. It cannot be dealt with satisfactorily unless it is treated on some single system which will hold good all over the country. The question of awarding the proper amount of pension to dependants is one which requires to be dealt with in a uniform fashion. From my own experience, I do not think the system which has been followed up to the present of leaving it to the pension officers and pension committees is at all satisfactory. Their methods of approaching cases differ in every part of the country, and the results are sometimes quite anomalous. The question can only be dealt with satisfactorily by some system of Government control, so that the same investigation shall take place in every case, and, when the facts are ascertained, the amount shall be adjudicated upon under one system. I am very doubtful, indeed, whether you will gain anything by bringing in local committees. The problem will be one to a great extent that will soon be over. No doubt in a year or two, after the conclusion of the War, the great mass of these questions will be settled. The question of the amount of the pension will be settled in each case. There will be no great amount of investigation of a local character required after that. You would do better if you established a separate Government Department to deal with this question, and if you allowed the Government Department additional money for the purpose of supplementing the amounts in those cases where justice requires it. By that means you would ensure uniform, administration and you would maintain the authority of this House in all questions of the administration of public money.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. PRICE

My sole reason for interfering in this Debate is because I was a member of a Committee dealing with disabled soldiers and sailors. That Committee has made its Report to the House. I regret I did not hear the statement of the Home Secretary, but I understand this Debate is preliminary to the introduction of a Bill embodying the principles of this Report. It would be a great pity if a Committee were set up for this purpose alone. It would be going in the teeth of the recommendation made to the House by the Disabled Soldiers and Sailors Committee. In paragraph 26 these words occur:— We observe, moreover, that the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pension and Grants) has recommended the appointment of a statutory Committee to deal with the pensions, separation allowances and supplementary grants payable to soldiers and sailors and their dependants. We therefore venture to suggest that some advantage might result from the constitution of one body, charged with all the functions to which we have alluded. In this way a more elaborate organisation than we have recommended for the purposes of this Report might be justified. The Committee went into this matter very carefully, and they felt that if you create a committee for dealing with pensions and allowances alone and another committee dealing with disabled soldiers and sailors you will not get people to serve upon these local committees. I have already heard complaints from several Members of the difficulty in dealing with this matter; therefore, if the Government are going to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject alone and then another Bill dealing with the employment not of disabled soldiers and sailors, but of ordinary soldiers and sailors, we shall have an abundance of committees that will cause a great deal of overlapping. Everyone knows that associated with the question of pensions is the question which you at once have to consider of what shall be done with a disabled man. I saw a man here to-day who had his eye taken out. It has not yet healed, but the War Office are told that he will never be competent to serve as a soldier again; accordingly the moment he is discharged he comes into a disablement pension which is considerably below the pay he was getting while under treatment. These subjects so overlap that it would be deplorable if the Government brought in a Bill dealing with this question of pensions alone. I suppose it is accounted for by the fact that separate Committees were appointed to report to different Departments of the State. The Committee upon which I sat was appointed by the Local Government Board, and that is the reason why it is not being considered by itself. I trust some effort will be made, when the Government bring in a Bill, to co-ordinate the work which has been suggested by these different Committees, so that we shall not have overlapping, and, as I am afraid, a multiplication of paid officials.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I have listened to the Debate with the greatest interest, and I am not saying more than is true when I say I have been touched by the most kindly and sympathetic spirit which has pervaded all the speeches. Everyone agrees that the provision now made for the soldier and sailor incapacitated during the War, and their wives, children and dependants, is far more adequate than this country has previously made, and away and beyond anything in any other European system. As regards the Navy, separation allowances were made for the first time from 1st October last. Prior to that date the sailor's dependants relied solely on the allotments and the remittances which he voluntarily made from his pay. The introduction of the allowance as from 1st October, it is only fair to say, has certainly not diminished the sailor's sense of personal responsibility to those dependent upon him, and I feel bound to quote these figures. I omit the commissioned officers and take the others—bluejackets, warrant officers and chief petty officers. On 1st August last 54,000 allotments were paid to wives and dependants and 14,000 payments were made into the Naval Savings Bank, and 1,800 remittances had been paid from time to time during the month of July. The total amount involved in these allotments, payments into the savings bank and remittances, was £148,000. That is last July's contribution and investment by the sailor from his pay. Of that, £127,000 went to wives and dependants and £21,000 to the Naval Savings Banks. Look at the facts to-day. Again omitting commissioned officers, on 1st May there were 170,000 allotments to wives and dependants, 40,000 payments into the Naval Savings Banks, and during April 12,500 remittances. The total involved in what I may call April's contributions and savings by the bluejacket from his pay is £537,000, and of that £492,000 were allotments to wives and dependants and £45,000 payments into the Naval Savings Banks. Of course it is true that the number of men embodied has been largely increased, and there are not so many opportunities of spending the pay as in ordinary circumstances. But these figures show that allotments and remittances are practically four times as great as before the War and savings bank investments twice as great.

The hon. Member (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) raised a point with which I must at once deal. The new Navy separation allowance brought in on 1st October stopped at chief petty officer and marine warrant officer on ships books. It was not carried upwards beyond chief petty officer and marine warrant officers on ships books. That meant that the naval warrant officer and the marine gunner, with their wives and children, with pay only, compared with pay and allowance in the case of the chief petty officer and marine warrant officer on ships books, and their wives and children, were not so well off. That is the point the hon. Gentleman put to me. We shall, therefore, extend the separation allowance in the case of naval warrant officers and marine gunners, and the rate will be: Wife, 8s. per week; first child, 4s.; second child, 3s.; third child, 2s.; and each succeeding child, 1s. That is the ordinary allowance for children, 4s., 3s., 2s., and 1s., and 1s. for each succeeding child. In these cases the allowance for other dependants will be under the same conditions as for the men. That is the case of the naval warrant officer and marine gunner. But that does not extend the scheme to the commissioned warrant rank. Let me make that quite clear. Neither can I hold out any prospect to any further extension. Now I come back to my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson). It is quite true that there is no legal compulsion on the sailor to contribute to the maintenance of his dependants. What we have said to the sailor is this: "If you want your wife and children to get the separation allowance you must make a minimum allotment allowance of 5s. a week." And notwithstanding the voluntary character of this arrangement the vast majority of sailors do fulfil their obligations honourably.

Mr. ANDERSON

I said I did not bring any sort of general charge. I referred to very exceptional cases.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Yes, I must not be supposed to suggest that the hon. Gentleman did other than refer to particular cases. That is quite true, and he will endorse all I say. I want to lead up to the position in which we find ourselves in regard to these very few cases. The figures I have given as to allotments and remittances do show, and the House will agree with me, that the bluejacket does fulfil his obligations honourably. The number of cases where there is refusal to allot is extremely small, and the reasons given are not such as can be lightly disregarded in most cases. My hon. Friend took particularly the case where a magistrate's order had been made. It is quite true there have been a few, a very few, magistrates affiliation and separation orders against sailors—so far as I know the number is very small. It is quite true that in the case of those orders, the Admiralty has no power, as the hon. Gentleman stated, to enforce the order by compulsory stoppage from pay. It is quite true, as he said, the War Office have the power and we have not. There have been only two cases—one of which I think he had in mind—recently brought to my notice for consideration. Our policy here is in these cases as well as in any case of refusal to make allotment to call the attention of the man's commanding officer to the case, and ask him to put the matter to the man. As a rule our representation is successful. I confess in view of the extremely small number of cases involved I have hesitated to come to the House for new legislative compulsory power. I thought it ungracious to come for powers and by coming seeming to cast a reflection—and a most undeserved reflection—on the vast majority of bluejackets who as I have said do carry out their obligations most honourably. I hope my hon. Friend will be prepared to leave it at that, and to trust to the commanding officer's representation, as we invariably put it to the commanding officer, to secure due recognition of responsibility where responsibility exists.

Several hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), raised the question of other dependant relatives, and the amount of allowance paid to them, and I take two cases which he stated as being very hard. He took the case of a young fellow, of a young soldier or sailor, who never contributed to the home much, if anything at all, as his father was alive. But while he is away, soldiering or sailoring, the father died, and the mother is left. The hon. Gentleman said there is a case where surely you ought to make an allowance. He also put the case of a lad who was an apprentice and only able as an apprentice to contribute a small sum before he went soldiering or sailoring. It was determined by the Administration that the amount of allowance his mother should get should be based on what he was able to contribute before the War as apprentice although if he had not been patriotic enough to join the Colours and had waited until he was a journeyman, he would have been able to pay more towards the home. That was the decision of the Select Committee. There are hard cases such as the two, and I admit they are hard.

Mr. HOGGE

The hon. Gentleman will remember that the House has already gone beyond the recommendation of the Select Committee in paying arrears during February. The terms start on the 1st March, and we have already gone back a month.

Dr. MACNAMARA

. The House is, of course, master of itself. I only take care that the strong representation made to-night shall be put before those who have the matter in hand. That is the Select Committee's decision, and the Select Committee's view was that in hard cases of that sort they should be referred to the supplementing body for consideration, and for assistance from the funds which might be placed at their disposal. As regards wives and orphans, the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) asked whether a widow, whether her husband was a seaman or of a higher rating, would get the 10s. rate. If he will look at page 4, paragraph 20, of the First Report of the Select Committee, he will see that consequential alterations will be required throughout in the rates for higher rank. In the White Paper the ranks went up by 6d. in each case, and the same applies here, as the ranks go higher the wives get proportionately higher money. Not the children, because the payments for children throughout are the same.

I listened to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) with regard to the allowances now made to widows and orphans, and I rather think he used the phrase that the pension is a low pension. Everybody knows that the Boer war pension for the lowest grade in the Army and Navy was 5s., and that the children's pension was 1s. 6d. a week, and that only those women who had been married on the strength prior to the husband's death were eligible for Boer war pensions. Comment is made again and again at this being a flat rate. Not quite as flat as all that. It is varied according to age as Members will know who have studied the Reports. Taking the lowest rank in the service, in the case of the widow of the sailor or of the soldier who happens to fall, the pension of 10s. a week will be increased to 12s. 6d. a week at the age of thirty-five, and to 15s. at the age of forty-five. The Select Committee's view was that if there were cases where more than that was properly demanded it would be for the supplementing body, the central body, acting on the advice of the local committee to make contributions from the funds at their disposal other than those voted by Parliament. I need not go into the provisions for the orphans of this War, except to say that they are far and away above the provisions for orphans made in the case of the Boer War.

One or two words about disablement pensions, both partial and total, because there seems to be a considerable amount of doubt. The total disablement proposal of the Select Committee having been discussed by the Board of Admiralty, the War Office and the Treasury, presently will be presented for the approval of His Majesty in Council, when we hope that we may have the proposal for partial disablement ready for presentation. For totally disablement the new rate is 25s. a week, with an allowance of 2s. 6d. a week for each child. That will apply to all cases of totally disabled men: All cases of men who are invalided for any kind of injury received, or for disease contracted directly on account of service since the beginning of the War will be treated as totally disabled, and the man who loses his sight, both eyes, or two limbs, will be treated as totally disabled, though he may be specially trained, as we hope he will be, to contribute something to his own support. In the case of men pensioned prior to the 1st of March at the old rate, the new rate will only take effect as from the 1st of March, and they will be brought up to the new rate as from that date. The new awards for total disablement mark a distinct advance on those allowable under existing regulations. In addition to the 25s. and the 2s. 6d. for each child additions will be made, as under the existing regulations, in respect of good conduct badges and medals. The War Office will administer a scheme, rather different in character but substantially coming to the same effect, and certain additions will be made for certain considerations which will be set out.

In reference to partial disablement, I confess that after very close study and consultation the proposals of the Select Committee appear to be more difficult to put into practice than the recommendations in regard to total disablement. They are still under consideration by the Board of Admiralty, who hope to reach a definite issue shortly. Of course they will naturally consult with the War Office, so that our administrations may run harmoniously. The scheme of the Select Committee is to award each man such proportion of 25s. a week as, together with the wages which he may be deemed to be capable of earning, will amount to 25s. a week, although in no case is it proposed that a man should get less than 10s. 6d. a week for the loss of an eye or a limb. Temporary allowance will be given in the case of temporary disablement, and will be subject to revision as time goes on, and in these cases it will be competent to make an allowance not exceeding 2s, 6d. a week for each child. That would dale from the same date as total disablement allowance, and there would be additions for ranks above the lowest ranks of the Army and Navy corresponding to those mentioned.

There has been only one reference to commissioned officers during the course of the Debate, and it has not been very prominently marked. The proposals with regards to wounds and disability pensions for officers have been drawn up by the War Office for the consideration of a Select Committee. These proposals are now being examined by the Admiralty with a view to the preparation of a scheme for naval officers. The proposals with regard to pensions and compassionate allowances for widows and children of officers who have died during the War are now before the Select Committee, and I understand that the question is now approaching settlement, and that the decision of the Committee will be announced shortly. I think I have now covered as well as I could most of the points which have been made. I want, finally, to say this—and I am really referring to a note which has been struck again and again in this Debate—in days gone by it has often been a reproach levelled at the Governments of the day, whether Liberal or Tory, without discrimination, that in this country we did not make due provision for those who fight our battles, and for those whom they may leave behind if they sacrifice their lives on our behalf. Such a reproach is no longer possible as a result of the provisions now made; and the crippled old soldier, with his row of medals, sweeping the crossing for a copper; the shattered veteran of bygone fights spending his declining years in the workhouse; the widow and orphans of the fighting man seeking the charity of the sympathetic are sad spectacles that ought not in future to be any longer possible because of these provisions. It would be quite impossible for me, filled as I am with deep affection and regard for those amongst whom I spent my early days and from whom I sprang, to sufficiently express my full sense of gratitude for the generosity of the provision now made, and for the care, sympathy, and solicitude shown by Members in all parts of this House in the task of making provision for the soldier and sailor and those who are dependent upon them.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

There is one point to which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a little further consideration—that is the case made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh of a woman whose husband, a civilian, died shortly after the War, and whose son, on whom she became dependent, has joined the Army. I have a case in my own mind of a woman whose husband was earning quite sufficient wages to keep himself and wife, and whose son, who was just going to start business at home, was under no need to contribute to his father's or mother's upkeep. The son joined the Army; the father died almost immediately afterwards, and the mother was left absolutely destitute. If the son had not done his duty and had not joined the Army, he would have been in a position to earn quite enough money to keep his mother and himself perfectly comfortably. The right hon. Gentleman defends the decision of the Committee by saying that they must draw a hard and fast line in regard to pre-War dependence in connection with the conditions of any Government allowance.

Dr. MACNAMARA

That is the Select Committee's condition, in regard to pre-War dependence, for the determination of the amount.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman does not defend it. You will see from No. 6, page 3, of the first Report that no difference should be made between wives married before the War or after enlistment. I understood the Committee's decision was that pre-War dependence was to be the condition of any allowance.

Dr. MACNAMARA

In these cases of dependant relatives.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Then I say there is no consistency whatever in their decisions, since they are different. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to see that this case is put right in the Bill when it comes before us. It is a very simple question. I know that those who disagree with me say that it is a very difficult question, because it creates a precedent, and will allow some men who never meant to support their families to do it at the last moment and claim the Government allowance. It is perfectly easy to differentiate between the genuine and the bogus cases. If the moment a mother becomes for the first time dependent upon her son, the son makes an allotment, that is sufficient evidence that it is a genuine case. If the son is a person who ought to have been supporting his mother before the War, and has not done so, it is perfectly easy to prove it. If the son is a person who has no necessity to support his mother until the death of the father, and then goes as far as possible to support her out of his pay by making an allotment, that is a guide by which you can go, and not by any hard and fast rules.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I will certainly represent the views of the hon. Gentleman. The decision of the Select Committee is that pre-War dependence must be the standard on which this matter is based, but I will, as I say, certainly communicate the views of the hon. Gentleman.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House approves of the Reports of the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants)."